Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, Aug 15, 2017.
Technically Dean design even if most of it flowed from churchwards pen...
City of Truro would be regarded as a Dean development rather than pure Churchward I imagine
I have been watching this thread but feel now is the time for my personal opinion as a GWR person.
All of the GWR projects seem to have been about recreating what people remember from their spotting days which does mean that they are later, standard engines making use of parts from other engines to some degree. I have often said to my colleagues that I want to see a Kruger, yes it may be ugly, but it will look different and does have some operational differences such as steam reverser. From a historical point of view there is virtually nothing GWR from about 1850 to 1900, from a historical point of view this could include Wolverhampton saddle tanks, Dean single wheelers, late broad gauge express locos and convertibles.
I would also like to see some of the other pre-grouping railway's locos, especially ones that were different, in their original form, do they have to be easy to operate, not in my view as they are to educate as much as transport people.
Oh, for those that forget, the Steam Rail-Motor is a recreated pre-grouping engine in a restored body that does look different and show what was once a common site on the network.
You miss my point. If we are going to do reconstructions of older locomotives to "plug gaps", then there needs to be more interest in how the significance of these is communicated to visitors, along with the difference between eras. It is not so much what is on the concert programme that matters, as enabling people to appreciate why it's there in the first place.
Hear, hear. I was born after the end of steam, and do not want preservation to be defined by what my parents' contemporaries remember from their youth. Maybe for the thread on volunteering, but I fear for the future of schemes that are just based on recreating memories.
That's a fair point.
Regrettably this is getting WIBN yet again. Whatever gets built (and for heavens sake lets get something else finished before cranking up support for yet another thing) will have to earn its keep. Whether this is a machine able to emulate Clan Line or Tornado with enough oomph to keep a sizeable train out of the way of timetabled main line services or a locomotive to haul 25 mph tourist railway trains economically, matters little. The various "inbetweenies" neither strong enough for one nor economical enough for the other are the things that concern me.
As for a "Kruger", may the Lord have mercy on us! A complete failure.
Not WIBN at all - this is about what needs to be considered if one of these is to be done. I speak for - and contribute to - none.
a failure? the two prototype led to the Aberdare class which quietly got on with the job of heavy freight haulage for 50 years
It was a failure. If you must build a replica of an outside framed 2-6-0 make it one of the successful sort. I emphasise the words "if you must".
Sorry, but "suggestions" which involve no effort or financial support on the part of the suggestor are the apotheosis of WIBN.
And here I was thinking it was just a few pages on the internet allocated to people just talking about stuff...I guess I was wrong.
We are plainly naughty school children who need to be admonished.
You just made me laugh Paul!
Still a lot of GWR and LNER stuff being kicked around....wheres the LMS, after all it was the biggest....and the best!
Oh for sure the Krugers were failures. But that's nothing to be ashamed of. If you don't push the boundaries you end up with a fleet of Midland 4Fs. The various bleeding edge features of the Krugers that didn't work out brought valuable lessons for the future. One only has to think of how much worse GWR locomotive policy would have been 10 years later if the Krugers had worked out and been seen as an example to follow - look at [linside cylinder 4-6-0s of a few years later from various other lines omitted]. Instead they got the Saints and the 28s, and everyone else got the pattern until the end of steam once they'd opened their eyes. The Aberdares weren't great either by most accounts, but they were adequate. The problem comes if you won't admit your failure is a failure (even a partial failure) and build them in large numbers.
do you not get that we are talking of the GWR pre 1923? when there was no LMS or LNER.......and as I said before it isn't a competition.
it isn't "it" , it is "they".
Nowt wrong with a little daydreaming (as long it doesn't lead to more Reeder style escapades).
Leader is a failure. The Paget Machine is a failure. The Steam/Diesel Hybrid, is a failure.
The Krugers were prototypes for more successful machines. So they served a purpose which led to something greater.
Separate names with a comma.